Floorboard access, instead of JB's can i use WAGO connectors

[JohnnyG]

I think that if wago are stating maintainance free, and you decided to use that, I wouldn't be advising anything other than a carpet covering over that area of floor and definatly a large marking of white paint with a notice on the board. I was given some of the ashley type once by a home owner who had sourced them after throwing his bulider off site for taping up connector blocks in the wall to extend a ring final circuit. I popped the ashley items in the bin and installed 47mm deep boxed in the wall below coving hight and wired from there, crimped the cables in the 47mm boxes and fitted blank plates. Not very attractive, but nicer to look at than a ripped apart kitchen with holes in the walls which have been made trying to find these ashley boxes.

Just out of interest, why did you chuck the Ashley boxes?
Have you used them before and found them to fail or do you just think they will fail due to their design?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Edit: Before the nay sayers start on these I'm not saying they are or are not compliant with regulations, unlike the manufacturers.

Isn't Amendment No 1:2011 going to make them compliant?

 

[JohnnyG]

Are you asking me or telling me?
I can't answer it if you are but if you know it is then great, thanks.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I haven't got round to downloading the DPC, but I thought I read somewhere that that was in it.

 

[JohnnyG]

I downloaded it but swiftly decided I'll take more interest in what actually becomes an amendment.

 

[17thman]

I consider that wago clips and the like offer an increased likelyhood of failure and the word "inaccessible" is ambiguous. I consider that the words "too dispruptive to find and repair"" is more relevant as the failure of a wago style clip is very dispruptive to correct. The incidence of rodent damage and damge by heating pipes is meesy enough without adding another failure factor.

 

[1john]

I think that if wago are stating maintainance free, and you decided to use that, I wouldn't be advising anything other than a carpet covering over that area of floor and definatly a large marking of white paint with a notice on the board. I was given some of the ashley type once by a home owner who had sourced them after throwing his bulider off site for taping up connector blocks in the wall to extend a ring final circuit. I popped the ashley items in the bin and installed 47mm deep boxed in the wall below coving hight and wired from there, crimped the cables in the 47mm boxes and fitted blank plates. Not very attractive, but nicer to look at than a ripped apart kitchen with holes in the walls which have been made trying to find these ashley boxes.

Just out of interest, why did you chuck the Ashley boxes?
Have you used them before and found them to fail or do you just think they will fail due to their design?

I thaught that they would be good on a lighting circuit where the current being drawn is quite low but this was a ring final circuit for a kitchen, i didn't have a great deal in the amount of contact the terminal made with the copper, I dare say they have been tested at 20A current for x amount of hours but I certainly didnt wanna look a tw@ if it went pear shaped. tbh i would rather have an inaccessable screwed connection on a high current circuit (high current under a domestic circumstance that is). These connectors are fairly recent / I havent had any experience with them, perhaps I could / should suppy a 20A radial at home with wago's in the consumer unit after the mcb at the very start of the circuit and see how they get on ?

 

[PingCrosby]

As the original poster i must chirp in here..

Having worked for the dept of defence for a large part of my career. I can honestly say that for all my moaning and grumbling about the way the DoD does things - the one thing they do extremely well is in writing guidelines and specifications.

I am not saying there is no ambiguaty - but it certainly is much much less than in other sectors where specifications & guidelines are written through huge committee's with lots of differing parties with vested interests

Arghhhhh.... I just want plain text rules...not open to interpretation.

 

[dingbat]

Arghhhhh.... I just want plain text rules...not open to interpretation.

And that is exactly what the Wiring Regulations are.; the Requirements for Electrical Installations. (It says so on the front cover. ) Although not a statutory document in its own right, you should consider very carefully what regulation 114.1 means.

Those who say things like 'depends how you interpret the regs' should consider how they might interpret, for instance, a 30mph speed limit, given that the Highway Code itself is also not 'the law'.

Regs 132.12, 513.1, 526.1 & 526.3 are pretty straightforward, I'd say.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Having worked for the dept of defence for a large part of my career. I can honestly say that for all my moaning and grumbling about the way the DoD does things - the one thing they do extremely well is in writing guidelines and specifications.

But that was in a different country, so there are cultural differences to consider as well.

 

[PingCrosby]

Nope .. i was definitely in the UK you must be getting confused because i type with an ^accent

 

[Monkeh]

That's strange, because we don't have a department of defence.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Nope .. i was definitely in the UK you must be getting confused because i type with an ^accent

No - what confused me was you twice using the term "Department of Defence", because we don't have one of those in this country.

Other countries do, and I can see how some people here might get the term wrong, but nobody who had actually spent a large part of his career working for the Ministry of Defence would ever make such a mistake.

 

[PingCrosby]

Other countries do, and I can see how some people here might get the term wrong, but nobody who had actually spent a large part of his career working for the Ministry of Defence would ever make such a mistake.

Not to get to far off topic.. but internally we referred to it as the dept of defence and as some one who did work there I would know what we called it internally

PS.. This is irrelevant...can we stick to the original thread.